In this stupid, unrealizable quest to find the ideal projectors, I've settled right now on, well, two. The panny 7000 for 3d and broadcast 2d, and the rs50 for films.

I'm curious how much better the 95 is than the 90, which I owned for a short while. I thought it was horrible for 3d (dimness and ghosting), and it's motion handling, while good, was not as good as its predecessor, the VPL-VW 85. The 85 had three motionflow (fi) modes, the 90 only two, and those two introduced red/green fringing while the 85 was glorious, So there were some changes to the technology, in this regard, and curious if the 95 is based more on the 85, at least improves on the 90, or carries forward those potential issues.

So if anyone has some comparisons of the 90 and 95, it would be great to read.

I'm late posting my final thoughts elsewhere on the panny vs the jvc, but between work and and an unexpected hospitalization, I've been unable to do so...

Thank you for reporting these numbers! It is very important that we determine exactly where you are in the throw range so that we can interpret these numbers correctly.

A few questions please:

1) What size screen DIAGONAL in inches do you have?

2) If you measure a straight line from the pj lens to the screen, how many inches is that?

3) What is your screen gain? This does not factor into the lumens calculation, but with it I can tell you what your ftL is.

4) When you took those lumen measurements, was the projector calibrated to D65 at that point? You mentioned some trouble calibrating. So if it wasn't calibrated to D65 (at least at 100%) when you took the measurements, we need to know that. As it stands, those would be the brightest measurements we've had yet which would be encouraging. But given your comments about trouble calibrating, it would seem perhaps the higher reading may be a result of not measuring at D65?

5) What instrument / meter are you using to measure lumens, and what technique are you using (i.e. "holding light meter xyz right in front of the screen" etc).

I'm curious how much better the 95 is than the 90, which I owned for a short while. I thought it was horrible for 3d (dimness and ghosting), and it's motion handling, while good, was not as good as its predecessor, the VPL-VW 85. The 85 had three motionflow (fi) modes, the 90 only two, and those two introduced red/green fringing while the 85 was glorious, So there were some changes to the technology, in this regard, and curious if the 95 is based more on the 85, at least improves on the 90, or carries forward those potential issues. So if anyone has some comparisons of the 90 and 95, it would be great to read...

From what I recall Joerod has a lot of experience with the VW90 and has spent the past few day playing with two VW95's. Hopefully he will make a comparison in his review, but if not you could ask him and he's probably one of the few in such a good position to answer. Its a great questions and I'm curious myself.

2) If you measure a straight line from the pj lens to the screen, how many inches is that?

3) What is your screen gain? This does not factor into the lumens calculation, but with it I can tell you what your ftL is.

5) What instrument / meter are you using to measure lumens, and what technique are you using (i.e. "holding light meter xyz right in front of the screen" etc).

If he is measuring pure lumen output, then his screen has nothing to do with the measurement. Lumens is the light the projector puts out, right? (Sorry if I am talking out of my ass on this) which has nothing to do with screen size or gain. Then again I can see how throw distance comes into play too.. so I guess all of these different people measuring different ways always confuses me (Isn't it Fl that is measured using the screen?) I personally don't know how he got his numbers either, but reasonably close to Kraine's measurements.

From what I remember of the Sony 90 (only own the 90 one month). The 3D was horrible but the 2D, like the 95, was pretty sharp, dynamic and contrasty.

Based on 3D alone, for me, the 95 is a better 3D machine than the Panny 7000 (still have the Panny in my room). The 95 is sharper, brighter, look more natural and have a better 3D effect. Also, the 95 is the less flikering, less eye fatigue 3D of the two.

Quote:

Originally Posted by thrang

In this stupid, unrealizable quest to find the ideal projectors, I've settled right now on, well, two. The panny 7000 for 3d and broadcast 2d, and the rs50 for films.

I'm curious how much better the 95 is than the 90, which I owned for a short while. I thought it was horrible for 3d (dimness and ghosting), and it's motion handling, while good, was not as good as its predecessor, the VPL-VW 85. The 85 had three motionflow (fi) modes, the 90 only two, and those two introduced red/green fringing while the 85 was glorious, So there were some changes to the technology, in this regard, and curious if the 95 is based more on the 85, at least improves on the 90, or carries forward those potential issues.

So if anyone has some comparisons of the 90 and 95, it would be great to read.

I'm late posting my final thoughts elsewhere on the panny vs the jvc, but between work and and an unexpected hospitalization, I've been unable to do so...

Based on 3D alone, for me, the 95 is a better 3D machine than the Panny 7000 (still have the Panny in my room). The 95 is sharper, brighter, look more natural and have a better 3D effect. Also, the 95 is the less flikering, less eye fatigue 3D of the two.

How many motionflow modes are there? When you have a chance , if you watch any hockey, do you see any red/green fringing during moderate motion with the FI on

The whole original intent with the 90 purchase was to get an 85 with 3d - the 90 was a big disappointment. If the 95 is similar or brighter than the 7000 and gets me better blacks so I have an all in one machine, I may have interest here...

Edit- how is the ghosting on the 95 vs the 7000? I find the 7000 exhibits almost no ghosting....

How many motionflow modes are there? When you have a chance , if you watch any hockey, do you see any red/green fringing during moderate motion with the FI on

The whole original intent with the 90 purchase was to get an 85 with 3d - the 90 was a big disappointment. If the 95 is similar or brighter than the 7000 and gets me better blacks so I have an all in one machine, I may have interest here...

Edit- how is the ghosting on the 95 vs the 7000? I find the 7000 exhibits almost no ghosting....

Of course, if you put the 7000 in dynamic mode, it will be brighter than the Sony but at the expense of too many things...

The ghosting is about the same on the 7000 and the 95.

Also, for 3D, I prefer the FI motion on the Sony.

On the 95, they are 2 FI mode like the 90.

I am a big hockey fan and when I watch a game with FI low (on the 95) to me the motion look great with no artifact.

I should received my Monster glasses tomorow. It is supposed to help pass more light and tame down whats left of the ghosting... Will see...

If he is measuring pure lumen output, then his screen has nothing to do with the measurement...

Yes I realize that. I even said in my question to him about the screen size and gain that it doesn't impact lumens, but rather I wanted it so I could calculate his ftL (which unlike lumens is directly impacted by screen size and gain).

I kinda agree that his lumens are reasonable close to Kraine's, but I think its borderline. Kraine reported 495, he reported 560. So that's about 13% brighter. Yes that can be within bulb tolerance, within measurement error/different meters etc. But assuming they were both at the same throw, and they were both at D65, then I would be a bit more encouraged at the 13% brighter results he had. This is why I am trying to get clarification from him on what his throw was and if he was at D65.

Rick - It was great to hear that the CMS on the Sony is working great. I was talking with a friend about this, and he brought up a good point - that just because it measures and dials in great at the RGBCYM reference points, that doesn't mean that it is tracking linearly. IOW what is going on inside the triangle may or may not be tracking properly. The JVC was known to have this issue.

Here's a way to get a rough idea if you are curious. If you performed your CMS calibration using 75% patterns, measure again with 100% patterns. And if you used 100% patterns to calibrate, measure with 75% patterns. Do the targets all still line up with reasonably close dE? If so that is a good sign.

The next thing to check is to measure at various saturation levels. I do not know this test that well so maybe someone else can chime in here. But the idea is to measure at 25%, 50%, 75% and 100% saturation for each color and the plot on the points on the chart should form straight lines and be evenly spaced.

I don't think we declare the CMS as fully functional and working properly until such tests validate the linear tracking.

Hey, you did seem a little disappointed that you had no significant flaw you could pick on for this pj - now here's your chance to test and find out.

And of course one needs to know if the machine is using the right formulas. Besides non linearity issues, any color decoding system uses formulas that derive the colors between the primary points and often manufacturers do not use the right formula which video processor manufacturers make damn sure they do. The only way to know for sure is to use a secondary target or some other color target. If the primaries are on and the secondaries need adjustment that would mean, I think, that incorrect decoding formulas are being used and fixing the secondaries will not correct all the other colors which are of course formula dependent. This stuff can drive one crazy. I eliminate all such worries with respect to any projector by using my Lumagen which uses the correct decoding formulas.

And of course one needs to know if the machine is using the right formulas. besides non linearity any color decoding system uses forumals derive the colors between the primary points and often manufacturers do not use the right formula which video processor manufacturers make damn sure they do. The only way to know whould be to use a secondary target or some other color target. If the primaries are on and the secondaries need adjustment that would mean, I think, that incorrect decoding formulas are being used and fixing the secondaries has nothing to do with fixing akll the other colors which are of course formula dependent. This stuff can drive one crazy. I eliminate all such worries with respect to any projector by using my Lumagen which uses the correct decoding formula.

I agree. That said, 13% is still 13% and I'll take it if I can get it. Especially when we are keeping 3D in mind. And certainly it was better than had he reported 13% less brightness. Though someone still may of course. We need lots of sample sizes to have a better idea so the more folks that weigh in the better.

Anyone heard from Cine4home lately? I know he's usually one of the first to get his hands on new pjs so I am thinking that perhaps we'll have a detailed review with measurements from him soon - hopefully.

Anyone heard from Cine4home lately? I know he's usually one of the first to get his hands on new pjs so I am thinking that perhaps we'll have a detailed review with measurements from him soon - hopefully.

My (95es) arrived while I was at lunch today. Unboxed it, and powered it on. Can't give many impressions yet about Picture quality.

One thing I did notice right off the bat is how quiet this thing is. I had to lean over from 3 or 4 feet away just to hear the fan on it. It is extremely quiet.

More to come when i get off work.......

Awesome Alan! So excited for you. When you get around to it, if you have a light meter it would be great to get a lumens (or lux) reading from you at both shortest and furthest throw. Or if not, and if you have a way to measure ftL that would at least give us an idea of drop across the throw range plus a rough estimate of lumens that we could back into.

On the 95, the ghosting I've got (with the Sony glasses) on that scene is less than the picture you are showing. I would say is just in between the Monster and the Sony.

I will take that as a good news that maybe there are less ghosting on the 95 after all.

I have finish to watch all my 3D disk (just some scene) and I think now I can concludes that the 95 have less ghosting than the HW30.

I think Joerod still have both in is room. If so, he will be able to answer that one for sure...

Rick - My screenshots in the signature link were taken with the HW30 about 6 inches above eye level on my 2.8 High Power screen. the HW30 is my 4th 3D projector and find that that the HP screen has a way of making ghosting more noticeable - likely because the image is a magnitude brighter than a 1.0 and 1.3 gain screen I have used before. There are times I have to squint through the glasses on bright scenes, certainly not a problem I am going to complain about, imo the original HP screen is a perfect match for 3D fans.

With the tuned MV3D's, I can pretty much match all the ghost free benefits of my Acer 5360 3 DLP which has no ghosting to be seen under any circumstances. Hopefully you like them as much as the rest of the folks who have tried the MV3D's. The downfalls are - power button isn't great, you have to use your fingernail to activate the glasses. Plus I find them to be fragile in comparison to glasses like the Sony, Xpand 103's, etc. I generally would not hand these out to careless guests.

Ok, thanks for the clarification. I can easily understand that my 0.9 gain screen is showing less ghosting due to the dimmer picture. Actually the ghosting is there but less noticeable.

Cant wait to test the Monster...

Quote:

Originally Posted by zombie10k

Rick - My screenshots in the signature link were taken with the HW30 about 6 inches above eye level on my 2.8 High Power screen. the HW30 is my 4th 3D projector and find that that the HP screen has a way of making ghosting more noticeable - likely because the image is a magnitude brighter than a 1.0 and 1.3 gain screen I have used before. There are times I have to squint through the glasses on bright scenes, certainly not a problem I am going to complain about, imo the original HP screen is a perfect match for 3D fans.

With the tuned MV3D's, I can pretty much match all the ghost free benefits of my Acer 5360 3 DLP which has no ghosting to be seen under any circumstances. Hopefully you like them as much as the rest of the folks who have tried the MV3D's. The downfalls are - power button isn't great, you have to use your fingernail to activate the glasses. Plus I find them to be fragile in comparison to glasses like the Sony, Xpand 103's, etc. I generally would not hand these out to careless guests.

The shortest throw may be good for brightness but if you have a screen with gain you will get the best uniformity ( and typically better contrast to boot) at the longest throw. My Firehawk hotspots at throws below 12 feet.

With angular reflective screens, the higher the gain, the longer the throw needed to eliminate most hot spotting. Retroreflective don't have this problem. But close throw, say 1.4 times the screen width, gain or an angular refective screen should not exceed about 1.3. Screen manufacturers such as Stewart have recommended minimum throw multipliers for each of their screen materials.

In this stupid, unrealizable quest to find the ideal projectors, I've settled right now on, well, two. The panny 7000 for 3d and broadcast 2d, and the rs50 for films.

It's a never-ending quest but it's fun, just when you think you got it down, they change everything around.

The journey is the adventure, actually getting the projector and setting it up is the end, and after a few hours once the honeymoon phase is over, the beginning of the next end, which means you have to start over and start looking for a new projector that can beat your current projectors.

This is a 3D concert with Peter Gabriel filmed in London with a full orchestra. It's a little slow @ first, but 1/2 way through it's excellent. The 3D is very cool, taking you through the various orchestra members, it feels like your sitting right next to them.